Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Modesty Proposal
As you’ve probably heard, France is in an uproar about burqinis. Three French mayors have banned them. A brawl reportedly broke out in Corsica last Saturday over women swimming in burqinis.
The word is a portmanteau of “burqa” and bikini,” but it’s is a misnomer, because the garment in question, unlike a burqa, doesn’t cover the face. France banned the burqa and the niqab six years ago. I wrote about that decision here — I was reluctantly in support of the ban. “Reluctant” for obvious reasons:
Let’s be perfectly frank. These bans are outrages against religious freedom and freedom of expression. They stigmatize Muslims. No modern state should be in the business of dictating what women should wear. The security arguments are spurious; there are a million ways to hide a bomb, and one hardly need wear a burqa to do so. It is not necessarily the case that the burqa is imposed upon women against their will; when it is the case, there are already laws on the books against physical coercion.
But in the end, in favor of it:
At its core, the veil is the expression of the belief that female sexuality is so destructive a force that men must at all costs be protected from it; the natural correlate of this belief is that men cannot be held responsible for the desires prompted in them by an unveiled woman, including the impulse to rape her. …
A woman who has been forced to veil is hardly likely to volunteer this information to authorities. Our responsibility to protect these women from coercion is greater than our responsibility to protect the freedom of those who choose to veil. Why? Because this is our culture, and in our culture, we do not veil. We do not veil because we do not believe that God demands this of women or even desires it; nor do we believe that unveiled women are whores, nor do we believe they deserve social censure, harassment, or rape.
I was careless about my nomenclature in that article. By “veiling” I meant using garments that cover the face. We can’t pretend that a garment that makes it impossible to see whether a woman is smiling, afraid, or sad — a garment that erases her face, her identity and uniqueness — is just another fashion choice.
But the argument over the burqini has nothing to do with face covering. According to the ruling, women must wear swimsuits “that respect good morals and secularism.” The ordinance says that “beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France and places of worship are currently the target of terrorist attacks, is liable to create risks of disrupting public order, which it is necessary to prevent.”
Needless to say, this has prompted international ridicule and outrage. The language of the ruling is weirdly reminiscent of dictates from the Saudi Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. The British media, especially, is delighted at the opportunity to mock the French:
Nothing says “losing the plot” to me more than demonising what is, let’s face it, a wetsuit. Is full-piece swimwear really more offensive than seeing a middle-aged bum crack? Is it really going to terrorise your Mr Whippy into a total meltdown?
Non, they say, we must ban the burqa. Ban the burkini! Ban the bikini! Oh no, wait, the last one is OK because it’s not related to religion or politics. Apparently. Let’s not forget that back in the 50s, the itsy-bitsy bikini was not so welcome in wider society either: in addition to censure from the Catholic church, it was banned in Spain, Portugal, Australia, Italy and many states across the US. It was even banned from beauty pageants after contestants in the first Miss World scandalously wore the two-piece swimwear.
Politicians talk constantly about integration and inclusion, and then proceed to kick out to the fringes the very women they claim are oppressed and excluded from society.
On Saturday, French courts upheld the ruling, saying the move was legal under French law forbidding people from “invoking their religious beliefs to skirt common rules regulating relations between public authorities and private individuals.” The judge noted that the Cannes ban had been declared “in the context of the state of emergency and recent Islamist attacks, notably in Nice a month ago,” and “The wearing of distinctive clothing, other than that usually worn for swimming, can indeed only be interpreted in this context as a straightforward symbol of religiosity.”
Some background: I’ve never been to Cannes, but from what I understand, the influx of Saudi tourists has in recent years been a sore spot:
Tensions have been high in the French Riviera ever since it emerged that a Saudi king has been allowed to commandeer a public beach all for himself.
King Salman is expected to arrive in the Riviera on Saturday, where he and his family will stay at his plush villa which stands just metres from the Mirandole beach in Vallauris.
Local beachgoers from nearby Cannes and Antibes, however, have been protesting against the fact they will be barred from the beach for the entire duration of the family’s stay.
Saudi royals further inflamed relations with local hosts when they were given the green light to build an elevator down to the sand to make it easier for them to access the beach from their villa.
A regional councilor took the matter a step further and launched a petition against the privatization of the beach, gaining over 50,000 signatures of support, reported the BFM TV channel.
Locals are infuriated by this, but business-owners need the money. “Clearly this is good news,” said Michel Chevillon, president of an association representing hotel managers in Cannes.
“These are people with great purchasing power which will pep up not only the luxury hotel industry but also the retail and tourism sectors of the town,” he told the AFP news agency.
Anyway, France is clearly determined to say, “This is France. We don’t wear garbage bags to the beach in France.”
But I think there’s a way to make this point that isn’t needlessly mean to women who’d prefer to dress modestly at the beach. Ban black burqinis.
How does that solve anything?
Well, just look. A beach full of women dressed head to toe in black would be depressing, joyless, and un-French. Sights like the one to the right are calculated to inflame anti-Muslim sentiment. The mayor isn’t wrong to say that an insistence upon dressing like this is a provocation. Cannes is known, after all, for its film festival, its glamour, and the young Brigitte Bardot in a revealing bikini.
That said, not everyone beautifies a beach by wearing a bikini. Everyone could probably agree about that. A beach that allowed women to dress in bright, cheerful, modest wetsuits shouldn’t offend anyone but the profoundly bigoted. The difference between the black burqini and colored ones is the difference between funereal joylessness and “a pretty good fashion choice for women with cellulite.”
But French mayors want to prove that they’re tough on terrorism, so they’re going to plump for meaningless gestures like burqini-banning. And Islamists want to prove that France is at war with Islam, so they’re going to plump for maximal outrage about it. It’s a problem that could actually be solved by goodwill and common sense, but neither seem to be available in abundance.
Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community
of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
These are not wetsuits. If I’m not mistaken, wetsuits are made of foam. They’re somewhat buoyant. These people are more in danger drowning — if they ever enter deeper water.
I guess there are two human impulses at odds here:
.
Which one Conservatives choose may say something about what Conservatism is – I don’t pretend to know the answer.
Isn’t that the disgusting irony here? If you force everyone to wear bikinis how do you know anyone actually wants to wear them? The only way to know what people will wear freely is to have no rules regarding clothing. This whole burka banning is thing is just all so unAmerican.
Garments that can be described as literally effacing have nothing fashionable about them.
This is definitely an element of French life, yes. It’s summed up in the phrase “comme il faut,” which roughly translates as “the way it’s supposed to be,” but has so many overtones that can’t be translated: It isn’t comme il faut to wear sneakers to work; it isn’t comme il faut to drink coffee with lunch; it isn’t comme il faut to wear loose clothing to the beach. There are actually many advantages to this kind of social discipline and regimentation: The French don’t have an obesity epidemic, for example, because the way they eat is so rule-bound. And if you’re used to doing things comme il faut, other countries start to seem very slovenly and dangerously self-indulgent after a while. The thing that confuses people is that the French are very disciplined about having fun, which strikes many observers — incorrectly — as libertinism. It’s not. It’s a series of rules for constraining vice.
Right. I lived in Cairo for a year in 1979-80. I had to educate some western women on how not to get harassed, or how not to get badly harassed, I should say. And that was when Egyptian women dressed like Western women (from the 1940’s – but still).
Something about our cultures don’t mix when it comes to sex. The tourist and the immigrants are the ones who must adjust, not the hosts or the natives.
When in Rome…When in Saudi Arabia, When in France…
I think that’s probably true – and for more than the Muslim world (exhibit A: India) – though going to the beach is not sex, right? Or is it?
That is absolutely true. So we circle back to what is French, who gets to decide? All the citoyens and citoyennes, or just the white ones?
Btw – a post about your experiences living in Egypt would be fascinating. How about it?
Good question V.
I am curious if you ask Muslim women if they prefer the full cover up suit or if they would prefer western swim attire, not necessarily beach volleyball attire.
So get to know some and ask them!! I’m serious.
My stepsister is orthodox, and covers her head and most of her body, as orthodox Jewish women do. She’s an immigrant to the United States. I’d find it outrageous to tell her she can’t dress as she does because she “has to adjust.” I’m not a huge fan of the orthodox perspective on women, but even less of a fan of imposing immodesty on other people.
Yes, I second that. From my experience of asking exactly that question, the answers vary as much as human beings do.
Lost in the discussion are Western women who would like to have options for more modesty in their swim clothes. I’d like to swim in something that doesn’t show my stretch marks, ingrown hair scars, and cellulite. I’d like to wear something that I can wear a bra with, because while they float in water, the girls need support on land.
Count me as one who’d be happy to have an option beyond what Western designers have determined is the acceptable level of modesty for chubby white girls.
Well there’s always the burquini.Tough gig.Honestly, just wear what you want to.
This is obviously a tourist hotel for westerners. I guess I have to qualify my statements for outliers. With the exception of special fenced off resorts for westerners.
Statement: You will be arrested for exposure if you go naked at a beach in America.
Response: Um no, not all beaches. There’s this nude beach in California…
This is Ricochet now. You can’t make simple common-sense statements without someone finding some exception and acting like that negates the point. Very sad.
I don’t read anything here that sounds unreasonable. Is it that there is lack of options i.e. not many swimwear companies sell such items?
My experience in Bahrain and UAE where western swimwear was acceptable is that it is cordoned off.
I know a fundamentalist Christian woman who wears such swimwear. It is perfectly safe to swim in.
I myself have swum in full-body-coverage suits for the purposes of synchronized swimming, and I’ve swum in dresses – dresses not designed as swimwear. A dress not designed for swimming is an impediment, yes, but not the impediment you might suppose. And have you even seen Victorian bathing costumes? Women can survive this stuff. We’re not such weaklings as to be drownded by a few extra ounces of drapery.
What possible justification could there be for government dictating fashion choices?
I realize this post touches on general issues of freedom, but if I (a 55-year old white fat guy) commented on Muslim women’s fashion in France … I’m sure it would trigger some Star Trek-like time vortex distortion. So, to protect the coherence of the universe, I’ll keep reading quietly.
I just wanted you all to know, however, how much I sacrifice for Ricochet. You’re welcome.
I’m not for this approach. I’m for limiting the number of immigrants from certain cultures, especially if they seem to be trying to force people to align with their culture. I do think it’s a bit silly to require less clothing. That I grant you.
But there are too many demands coming from these recent immigrants who have such a different culture. We are different. Don’t come.
But I don’t see Orthodox Jewish men being sexually aggressive with uncovered women.
I think we could take in the entire world diaspora of Orthodox Jews and it’ wouldn’t affect our American culture, or if it started to I’d ask for some adjustments.
Surely there are clashes between conservatives of all stripes and libertines and feminists.
You might want to weigh in on this controversy:
http://forward.com/news/341742/hasidic-single-sex-swimming-sparks-new-clash-with-new-york-law-at-the-local/
My implication was not weakness, but the more fabric on a person the heavier it is. Also in water the fabric can go over ones face impeding their breathing. Drowning is a danger even with people who can swim and safety in swimming should always be paramount, especially in the ocean when currents and rip tides can pull you out without much warning. This was not implying that women are weak.
No, really it isn’t: Bodrum is where Turks go to the beach. Westerners also go there, because it’s beautiful, but 80 percent of the people there are Turkish, and another ten percent are Russian — the rest are from other countries. You’ll see the occasional burqini and a wide range of swimwear.
Correct. A bra boutique that caters to the hard to fit will often have underwire suits, but they will still be the standard unitard or tank top shape. Athletic stores may carry “rash guard” swim tops which have long sleeves to protect wave and surf boarders from the boards. And there are the “swim skirts” that have panties sewn inside that at least cover the crotch, though you’d be arrested for solicitation if you wore it out of the water.
But yes, there is no way to buy a swim suit that covers as much skin as knee length shorts and a t shirt. Most women deal with this by never going swimming.
I recall years ago, as in 3+, Bereket put up a post about a girl making modest swimwear. Maybe it is still in the archives. I am not sure if that helps.
You are, or were, in shoe/fashion sales at one time. This sounds like a business opportunity, no?
I doubt this would be an issue outside of some local papers looking to fill a column or two if France wasn’t under terrorist attack.
While girls on swim teams aren’t typically known for their bounteous bosoms, they are known for having to swim a lot, even when they’re not feeling all groomed and sexy. As you can tell from the Olympics, suits down to the knees are now the norm in women’s swimming competitions. These suits are incredibly expensive, but a cheaper substitute can be mocked up by getting a high-compression women’s legless Speedo (which can keep the girls from sagging, mainly by mashing them into these huge pancakes at the top of your chest) and then a pair of men’s form-fitting to-the-knee Speedo shorts and wearing the two together. It provides no arm coverage, but does hide unsightly, ungroomed thighs.
The girls on my high school synchro team often wore skater’s or gymnast’s tights with their swimsuits for practice or performance. I was once given a “swan costume” so, um, white and… see through once it got wet that there was really no other option but to wear a full nude suit with leggings underneath it.
Well… Frenchness…
How so?
A shop specializing in modest women’s clothing is something I’ve considered starting for a while. (Pesky student loans make entrepreneurship even more challenging.)
Because yes, there are a lot of women in the area who embrace counter cultural modesty – not just Muslims, but also Orthodox Jews, Mennonites, Mormons, and Pentecostals.
If safety in swimming were always paramount, the human race would just stay away from water altogether. Now, my parents raised me to be a water rat (though I’ve become less of one as I’ve aged, partly for modesty reasons), so I appreciate taking safety precautions, given the knowledge that you’re engaging in a risky activity. But there are numerous trade-offs here:
Having been swimming in pretty much every type of garment short of a parka, for one reason or another, I’d venture to guess not knowing how to swim well is a much, much bigger risk than a full-coverage swimsuit with modesty draping that still is, after all, made from textiles designed to be swum in.
And anyhow, the truth is, many of us like to swim because it can be a little bit dangerous. We go swimming at night, or at dawn before the lifeguards arrive. It is more thrilling that way, even if, truth be told, it’s still not very dangerous, if you know how to swim. We like being far from shore, or swimming and diving near natural hazards.
Now, I am the cautious sort. I’ve never jumped off a cliff unless I watched several frat boys do it first without injuring themselves. But then, bombs away! We conservatives are always railing against too much safety-first mentality. I think that would apply here as well.